You, sir, don't know what the heck you are talking about.
You clearly do not understand what accelerator collisions do ("we CREATE matter").
In fact, you don't even know the meaning of the word "sub-atomic".
You are not Cynical, you are just Stupid.
If you can make elements in the labs, then the said elements exist. You call them "artificial" because you made them, but who is to say that the very same processes cannot happen in a more natural setting like in a the core of a neutron star or in a hypernova?
So no, I don't have a problem with man-made elements because what we humans can do and create is insignificant compare to the possibilities that nature Herself can accomodate.
I think you are confused about what is a singularity. Which is alright, since we don't really know what is a singularity.
A singularity is predicted by General Relativity, which is a classical theory, and we don't have confidence that GR works at very small scales. So we don't really know what happens at the infinitisimal small scales of a singularity.
So don't worry too much. Be interested about it's existence. But be careful when you try to apply unknown physics and make claims about the eternal existence of the universe (which we don't know the answer to, yet).
(am not the A.C. you refer to, of whom btw I think know a ton about this stuff so you should listen to him/her.)
SEX!s.e.x.Sex.53X!sex.Si-Ee-Eks
Re:Jeeze, the uninformed replies nowadays
on
Star In A Jar
·
· Score: 1
Thanks. The Enrico Fermi Institute is actually 20 steps from my office.
Einstein though, was never American. He was German, became stateless, then got a Swiss citizenship, which he remained till his death.
Yes, I don't know why, considering that he wrote a letter to FDR that started the whole A-Bomb thing.
SEX!s.e.x.Sex.53X!sex.Si-Ee-Eks
Re:Jeeeze, the moderation nowadays....
on
Star In A Jar
·
· Score: 1
Indeed. I am shortcutting. But usually when I say "interact", I mean there exist a coupling constant with ordinary Standard Model stuff that we know and love. Gravitational "interaction" is a big harder to picture, since the standard model picture of gravitons mediating the force doesn't really work. SEX!s.e.x.Sex.53X!sex.Si-Ee-Eks
Re:pressures and densities of the sun
on
Star In A Jar
·
· Score: 1
actually it's on the order of a million years depending on the density you put in.
SEX!s.e.x.Sex.53X!sex.Si-Ee-Eks
Let me add mine! This is fun!
on
Star In A Jar
·
· Score: 1
Nobody ever unravelled the basic fabric of spacetime by studying Scripture.
Nobody will invent paper and ink by studying Scripture.
(Take that, recursive fans!)
SEX!s.e.x.Sex.53X!sex.Si-Ee-Eks
Jeeeze, the moderation nowadays....
on
Star In A Jar
·
· Score: 5
sucks. Well done, Physics Major, you have scored a perfect coup! You should apply for a job with writing the new Star Trek series.
Here is the corrected version :
(a) Most of the Universe (if you believe in General Relativity) is composed of Dark Energy (70%), not Dark Matter (about 30%). Normal stuff like us is less than 1%.
(b) Neils Bohr is Scandinavian, not German.
(c) Dark Matter accretes, and in current popular models, it does not interact with matter at all (else it won't be "dark")
(d) There is no chance of shooting lasers turning us into exotic matter. Though physicists might wish it does.
(e) What the heck is "phasic" laser beams?
(f) The SETI inference is what convinced me that you are writing a parody. Good job.
thanks to the American invasion of Britain in WWII. (Spam was the arguably single most consumed american import in England during the war years.)
SEX!s.e.x.Sex.53X!sex.Si-Ee-Eks
It's OSKAR S. Sigh. So much for *beep*. S. List was as accurate as a 3 hour movie can make it. The original survivors were roped into help the actors playing them be "method".
Also, the landing craft in D-Day are piloted by men of the Royal Navy _and_ the US Coast Guard. On exactly who is that fellow that delivered one of the two boats that took US 2nd Ranger Battalion C Co to Omaha Dog Green, who knows. So even if you can guess the nationalitiy of the coaxswain using the few words that the actor uttered in SPR ("30 seconds!"), it does not really matter.
I am not defending Hollywood's regular butchery of historical "truth". But give credit when it is due. Criticizing such details is petty.
(1) What you described is called "vacuum energy", and is actually one of the suspects. However, current physics has a problem : the predicted vacuum energy is 10^(120) (that's 1 followed by 120 zeroes) larger than the actual measured vacuum energy (called the cosmological constant by some people). With respect to the Pioneer 10 acceleration, the predicted VE will be too big, the measured VE will be too small.
(2) Not likely. Small things can theoretical deflect the probe. However you run into two showstoppers (i) things are too small to make any difference (ii) the things will deflect the probe, averaged out, in an "isotropic" way (what this means is that, on average, there will be no net deflection).
(3) Possible. But this uneven distribution will be detected long before. It's discussed in the paper that I listed in another post here. The punchline is that such things will also cost deflection of the planets, and we don't see that.
BTW - If we're here as a result of random processes, how can you say that your thoughts are ordered?
Ordered thoughts are more advantageous then disordered thoughts, that's why I am here. (That's the short answer. The point is that random processes mutate genes, but only those whose mutation is advantageous survives. There are many more disadvantageous mutation, like eg. a dumber human being, which does not survive and gets wipe out.)
Science is a method, and does not presuppose anything. If the universe we live in is disorderly (I don't knw what you mean by "orderly", so I take it to mean violating the copernican principle.), then science can deal with it in a systematic manner. (To continute our example, it's quite possible, and people do this kind of things, to describe the universe which violates the copernican principle. The only problem is that it's very hard since astrophyical observations currently support a universe which obeys the copernican principle. If there are evidence of otherwise, that will be a revolution in science. And, I will be much happier, since it means nature is a lot more richer in structure than we think!)
It's true that lots of science is done by christians. The quintessential example is Newton. (Galileo was nearly burned at the stake, so that's not so good example.) But the science at that time has not reach a stage where it can challenge the words of the Bible. Nowadays, clear conflicting views of fundamental things such as creation of the Universe are presented by science and religion. In this conflict, something has to give.
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
Thanks. To paraphrase that Amazing grace: Can see, but now I'm blind. Life is so much more fun when the future is mysterious, and the journey's of one's mind has just begun.
Events which challnege these are tanamount to the appearance of prophets--things so profound that they change almost the entirety of the belief system.
If a prophet appears, and do miracles that passes all tests against fraud, then the science must find some way to accomadate that. Even if that means abandoning the copernican principle (i.e. all universe opeates on the same laws).
This sorting out by scientists frequently results in the old result being discarded.
We wish! The ugly truth is that there are a lot more wrong papers out there than "right" ones. (Quotes as requested). Popular preception cast science is a linear progression. The reality is that for every "correct" paper, there are a zillion wrong ones.
Actually, the church will sometimes change its position on an issue.
The Church will not change on issues such as who is the Creator. Or salvation through grace via believing in Jesus. Or a lot of other "fundamental tenets" of Christianity. If the COBE satellite did not find the Cosmic Microwave Background to be a blackbody, then the Big Bang theory (a "fundamental" tenet of Cosmology) that we all know and love will be in serious trouble. (It did, btw, so we still love BB). (My own research is trying to mess up Einstein's gravity theory, a "fundamental" tenet of physics. While controversial, it is legitimate research since eintein's gravity is not tested at certain large scales. My point is that there is no "fundamental shrine" which is untouchable, unlike religion.)
Look at the state of science under Stalin or Mao. Look at eugenics, or phrenology, or the scientific evidence for "race".
There are a lot of good science done by scientists under Stalin or even Nazis. (Before you flame, von Braun is a nazi scientist who advanced rocketry.) There are two points to be made here : (a) Science cannot decide what is "moral", only people can so please do not confuse "research that is an affront to humanity" with "bad science" (b) the debate surrouding the example you brought up is exactly the "self-correcting" mechanism that I mentioned : the last word is experimental evidence which is totally impartial.
As loathe as science fans are to admit it, scientists are people
Exacly why there is a self-correcting mechanism built into the methods of science : because scientists are human and humans make mistakes. THe "Science fans" who claimed scientists are infallible are the same kind that claim science has solved everything (and to the stake they go.)
And why then doesn't religion get any credit for repenting of past wrongs?
They do. But moral "wrongs" as defined in our current view of what is "right". And in my OP, I did say that religion is meting out moral decisions. Science concern itself with nature, not morals.
(a) People who claimed science has everything worked out is wrong and should be burned on the stake for heresy.
(b) New discoveries do not override old ones. When a new "discovery" is in conflict with "old discovery", you throw doubt into both. Which means those poor underpaid scientists have to go (happily, granted) figure out which one is right, or even both is wrong. This is called "self-correcting mechanism". The joke is "if the data does not fit the theory, then the data is wrong" is not science, but religion.
Now, here are opinions :
(i) The fact that science is playing catch-up is it's strength, not weakness. It's humble enough to admit that we don't know the Truth. What it does is to provide a self-correcting way to incrementally search out the answer. Religion on the other hand, claims (rightly/wrongly, up to the person to decide) to know the answer. I think the former is a lot more fun than the latter.
(ii) I don't totally agree with the poster's point that religion is about ethics. Religion started out as an attempt as an explanation of the physical world. (There are priests before scientists.) Since that role has been taken up by science, it is now happily playing the role of meting out moral/ethics decisions, which not-so-coincindentally, science has no role to play.
(c) Finally, I think religion can be abused which is why I do not see religion as necessary a Good Thing(tm). There are genuine people who believe. Then, there are those who play with people's minds to enrich themselves. Religion encourage blind faith, which is lulls the mind and stops the critical thinking process. That can't be a good thing, can it?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you can have a look at a Neutron Star. That's one very big atom!
(Disclaimer : strictly speaking a Neutron Star is not an atom, but it is a very big ball of neutrons and protons in a bound state.)
You, sir, don't know what the heck you are talking about. You clearly do not understand what accelerator collisions do ("we CREATE matter"). In fact, you don't even know the meaning of the word "sub-atomic". You are not Cynical, you are just Stupid.
If you can make elements in the labs, then the said elements exist. You call them "artificial" because you made them, but who is to say that the very same processes cannot happen in a more natural setting like in a the core of a neutron star or in a hypernova?
So no, I don't have a problem with man-made elements because what we humans can do and create is insignificant compare to the possibilities that nature Herself can accomodate.
Your point, which is....?
SEX!s.e.x.Sex.53X!sex.Si-Ee-Eks
I think you are confused about what is a singularity. Which is alright, since we don't really know what is a singularity.
A singularity is predicted by General Relativity, which is a classical theory, and we don't have confidence that GR works at very small scales. So we don't really know what happens at the infinitisimal small scales of a singularity.
So don't worry too much. Be interested about it's existence. But be careful when you try to apply unknown physics and make claims about the eternal existence of the universe (which we don't know the answer to, yet).
(am not the A.C. you refer to, of whom btw I think know a ton about this stuff so you should listen to him/her.)
SEX!s.e.x.Sex.53X!sex.Si-Ee-Eks
Thanks. The Enrico Fermi Institute is actually 20 steps from my office.
Einstein though, was never American. He was German, became stateless, then got a Swiss citizenship, which he remained till his death.
Yes, I don't know why, considering that he wrote a letter to FDR that started the whole A-Bomb thing.
SEX!s.e.x.Sex.53X!sex.Si-Ee-Eks
Indeed. I am shortcutting. But usually when I say "interact", I mean there exist a coupling constant with ordinary Standard Model stuff that we know and love. Gravitational "interaction" is a big harder to picture, since the standard model picture of gravitons mediating the force doesn't really work.
SEX!s.e.x.Sex.53X!sex.Si-Ee-Eks
actually it's on the order of a million years depending on the density you put in.
SEX!s.e.x.Sex.53X!sex.Si-Ee-Eks
Nobody ever unravelled the basic fabric of spacetime by studying Scripture.
Nobody will invent paper and ink by studying Scripture.
(Take that, recursive fans!)
SEX!s.e.x.Sex.53X!sex.Si-Ee-Eks
sucks. Well done, Physics Major, you have scored a perfect coup! You should apply for a job with writing the new Star Trek series.
Here is the corrected version :
(a) Most of the Universe (if you believe in General Relativity) is composed of Dark Energy (70%), not Dark Matter (about 30%). Normal stuff like us is less than 1%.
(b) Neils Bohr is Scandinavian, not German.
(c) Dark Matter accretes, and in current popular models, it does not interact with matter at all (else it won't be "dark")
(d) There is no chance of shooting lasers turning us into exotic matter. Though physicists might wish it does.
(e) What the heck is "phasic" laser beams?
(f) The SETI inference is what convinced me that you are writing a parody. Good job.
SEX!s.e.x.Sex.53X!sex.Si-Ee-Eks
thanks to the American invasion of Britain in WWII. (Spam was the arguably single most consumed american import in England during the war years.)
SEX!s.e.x.Sex.53X!sex.Si-Ee-Eks
It's OSKAR S. Sigh. So much for *beep*. S. List was as accurate as a 3 hour movie can make it. The original survivors were roped into help the actors playing them be "method".
Also, the landing craft in D-Day are piloted by men of the Royal Navy _and_ the US Coast Guard. On exactly who is that fellow that delivered one of the two boats that took US 2nd Ranger Battalion C Co to Omaha Dog Green, who knows. So even if you can guess the nationalitiy of the coaxswain using the few words that the actor uttered in SPR ("30 seconds!"), it does not really matter.
I am not defending Hollywood's regular butchery of historical "truth". But give credit when it is due. Criticizing such details is petty.
and found that it was all pr0n.
Me beat you! Me fuck your girl!
Ahh....good to let my semi-evolved brain-stem rule for a while.
(Seriously, sex and violence attracts because of a million years of programming through evolution.)
Nothing to see here...move along...
nuff said.
(e) is my favourite. Not that it works of course. I just happen to be working on funny gravity stuff.
(1) What you described is called "vacuum energy", and is actually one of the suspects. However, current physics has a problem : the predicted vacuum energy is 10^(120) (that's 1 followed by 120 zeroes) larger than the actual measured vacuum energy (called the cosmological constant by some people). With respect to the Pioneer 10 acceleration, the predicted VE will be too big, the measured VE will be too small.
(2) Not likely. Small things can theoretical deflect the probe. However you run into two showstoppers (i) things are too small to make any difference (ii) the things will deflect the probe, averaged out, in an "isotropic" way (what this means is that, on average, there will be no net deflection).
(3) Possible. But this uneven distribution will be detected long before. It's discussed in the paper that I listed in another post here. The punchline is that such things will also cost deflection of the planets, and we don't see that.
Hope this helps.
Check out the JPL final paper on this.
:
Possibles are
(a) Heat Ejection (b) Gas Leak (c) Clock Drift (d) Anomalous objects (pretty dead, despite BBC giving prominence) (e) modifications to gravity (f) solar radiation pressure (g) systematics of observations (h) antenna radiation pressure
Let the armchair speculation begin. (But remember to read the paper to check your answers!) Have Fun!
BTW - If we're here as a result of random processes, how can you say that your thoughts are ordered?
Ordered thoughts are more advantageous then disordered thoughts, that's why I am here. (That's the short answer. The point is that random processes mutate genes, but only those whose mutation is advantageous survives. There are many more disadvantageous mutation, like eg. a dumber human being, which does not survive and gets wipe out.)
Science is a method, and does not presuppose anything. If the universe we live in is disorderly (I don't knw what you mean by "orderly", so I take it to mean violating the copernican principle.), then science can deal with it in a systematic manner. (To continute our example, it's quite possible, and people do this kind of things, to describe the universe which violates the copernican principle. The only problem is that it's very hard since astrophyical observations currently support a universe which obeys the copernican principle. If there are evidence of otherwise, that will be a revolution in science. And, I will be much happier, since it means nature is a lot more richer in structure than we think!)
It's true that lots of science is done by christians. The quintessential example is Newton. (Galileo was nearly burned at the stake, so that's not so good example.) But the science at that time has not reach a stage where it can challenge the words of the Bible. Nowadays, clear conflicting views of fundamental things such as creation of the Universe are presented by science and religion. In this conflict, something has to give.
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
Thanks. To paraphrase that Amazing grace: Can see, but now I'm blind. Life is so much more fun when the future is mysterious, and the journey's of one's mind has just begun.
Points :
(a) "ordered" can means a lot of things. QM and Chaos theory, despite popular conceptions, have definite, quantifiable and consistent predictions.
(b) Natural selection says that _random_ mutation which are advantageous are selected for. So there is inherent randomness in it.
:) Obviously you are not working in Cosmology or high energy physics! (That's my experience, so maybe I am wrong in other fields, though I doubt it!)
Events which challnege these are tanamount to the appearance of prophets--things so profound that they change almost the entirety of the belief system.
If a prophet appears, and do miracles that passes all tests against fraud, then the science must find some way to accomadate that. Even if that means abandoning the copernican principle (i.e. all universe opeates on the same laws).
This sorting out by scientists frequently results in the old result being discarded.
We wish! The ugly truth is that there are a lot more wrong papers out there than "right" ones. (Quotes as requested). Popular preception cast science is a linear progression. The reality is that for every "correct" paper, there are a zillion wrong ones.
Actually, the church will sometimes change its position on an issue.
The Church will not change on issues such as who is the Creator. Or salvation through grace via believing in Jesus. Or a lot of other "fundamental tenets" of Christianity. If the COBE satellite did not find the Cosmic Microwave Background to be a blackbody, then the Big Bang theory (a "fundamental" tenet of Cosmology) that we all know and love will be in serious trouble. (It did, btw, so we still love BB). (My own research is trying to mess up Einstein's gravity theory, a "fundamental" tenet of physics. While controversial, it is legitimate research since eintein's gravity is not tested at certain large scales. My point is that there is no "fundamental shrine" which is untouchable, unlike religion.)
Look at the state of science under Stalin or Mao. Look at eugenics, or phrenology, or the scientific evidence for "race".
There are a lot of good science done by scientists under Stalin or even Nazis. (Before you flame, von Braun is a nazi scientist who advanced rocketry.) There are two points to be made here : (a) Science cannot decide what is "moral", only people can so please do not confuse "research that is an affront to humanity" with "bad science" (b) the debate surrouding the example you brought up is exactly the "self-correcting" mechanism that I mentioned : the last word is experimental evidence which is totally impartial.
As loathe as science fans are to admit it, scientists are people
Exacly why there is a self-correcting mechanism built into the methods of science : because scientists are human and humans make mistakes. THe "Science fans" who claimed scientists are infallible are the same kind that claim science has solved everything (and to the stake they go.)
And why then doesn't religion get any credit for repenting of past wrongs?
They do. But moral "wrongs" as defined in our current view of what is "right". And in my OP, I did say that religion is meting out moral decisions. Science concern itself with nature, not morals.
Here are facts :
(a) People who claimed science has everything worked out is wrong and should be burned on the stake for heresy.
(b) New discoveries do not override old ones. When a new "discovery" is in conflict with "old discovery", you throw doubt into both. Which means those poor underpaid scientists have to go (happily, granted) figure out which one is right, or even both is wrong. This is called "self-correcting mechanism". The joke is "if the data does not fit the theory, then the data is wrong" is not science, but religion.
Now, here are opinions :
(i) The fact that science is playing catch-up is it's strength, not weakness. It's humble enough to admit that we don't know the Truth. What it does is to provide a self-correcting way to incrementally search out the answer. Religion on the other hand, claims (rightly/wrongly, up to the person to decide) to know the answer. I think the former is a lot more fun than the latter.
(ii) I don't totally agree with the poster's point that religion is about ethics. Religion started out as an attempt as an explanation of the physical world. (There are priests before scientists.) Since that role has been taken up by science, it is now happily playing the role of meting out moral/ethics decisions, which not-so-coincindentally, science has no role to play.
(c) Finally, I think religion can be abused which is why I do not see religion as necessary a Good Thing(tm). There are genuine people who believe. Then, there are those who play with people's minds to enrich themselves. Religion encourage blind faith, which is lulls the mind and stops the critical thinking process. That can't be a good thing, can it?
Maybe Kubrick was thinking about a sex-change operation?!